I post this in the hopes of looking at one of the worst Presidential Administrations in American History...compared to the Obama Administration. Does anyone else feel that Bush was almost as destructive towards civil liberties as Obama? Think beyond the good people Bush put on the court, whereas Obama put Marxists on the court. Score 1 for Bush.

But what about "never let a crisis go to waste"? Bush used 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act. Obama used healthcare scares to pass Obamacare. One eroded Constitutional liberties and spent Billions of dollars. The other eroded Constitutional liberties and spent....Billions of dollars. Difference?

I've served under both Bush and Obama. In my estimation, both were Big Government liberals who destroyed our liberties and spent Trillions on B.S. So why does Obama get all the credit for taking our country to Hell in a handbasket?

Let me know your own views. :D

djones520

08-05-2011, 11:32 PM

As for the Patriot Act, I've always wondered just what civil liberties of yours have been violated?

We probably won't know for another 20 years or so how many terrorist attacks it's helped prevent though. How many lives it's saved.

FeebMaster

08-05-2011, 11:33 PM

Yes, but the current guy always seems worse because you're further down the hill.

So why does Obama get all the credit for taking our country to Hell in a handbasket?

Same as above. Plus, he plays for the other team.

marinejcksn

08-05-2011, 11:48 PM

Great points! I would agree....Dems in power=Republicans pissy. GOP on top=liberals going ape. But the end result is basically the same thing.

marinejcksn

08-05-2011, 11:51 PM

As for the Patriot Act, I've always wondered just what civil liberties of yours have been violated?

We probably won't know for another 20 years or so how many terrorist attacks it's helped prevent though. How many lives it's saved.

The ability for the Feds to sneak and peak without a warrant? The fact that basically no Congressmen read it before they passed it? Like Obamacare?

djones520

08-05-2011, 11:57 PM

The ability for the Feds to sneak and peak without a warrant? The fact that basically no Congressmen read it before they passed it? Like Obamacare?

That's not my question. My question was, what of YOUR civil liberties have been violated. As long as the power is not being abused, I don't see an issue with it.

We've gotta have safeguards in check. This isn't a conventional enemy, we can't use conventional means to fight them.

As long as we are remaining vigilant that the powers granted by that act are not being abused, then we have little to worry about.

marinejcksn

08-06-2011, 12:03 AM

That's not my question. My question was, what of YOUR civil liberties have been violated. As long as the power is not being abused, I don't see an issue with it.

We've gotta have safeguards in check. This isn't a conventional enemy, we can't use conventional means to fight them.

As long as we are remaining vigilant that the powers granted by that act are not being abused, then we have little to worry about.

Keep in mind, I fought terrorism too. Or at least the Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The point is, have my liberties been violated? I would have no way of knowing. Warrentless wiretaps could be used on anyone, at anytime.

That said, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda fanatics have spoken many times about using our powers against us. Wouldn't you think that giving the Government this much power might be something they would envision?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither."

djones520

08-06-2011, 12:07 AM

Keep in mind, I fought terrorism too. Or at least the Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The point is, have my liberties been violated? I would have no way of knowing. Warrentless wiretaps could be used on anyone, at anytime.

That said, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda fanatics have spoken many times about using our powers against us. Wouldn't you think that giving the Government this much power might be something they would envision?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither."

So while I'm saying it's our responsibility to keep an eye on our government to ensure they dont' abuse these powers, your content to just sit there and scream "BUT THEY CAN! THEY CAN ABUSE THEM AND THAT'S BAD!".

Big news for you bud. They already have the means to violate everyone of your civil rights. They have 105mm smoothbores, 1000lb JDAMS, and Tomahawk missiles.

marinejcksn

08-06-2011, 12:19 AM

You speak as if I'm an unwashed Michael Moore hippy douche. I served in the Marines, I know the Government can violate my rights by shoving a 40 mike mike up my crapper. It doesn't mean I have to blindly support it.

Sonnabend

08-06-2011, 12:26 AM

You speak as if I'm an unwashed Michael Moore hippy douche.

You are sounding like it

I served in the Marines,

That's PRESIDENT Bush to you. Your prev CinC. If you met your old CO in private life you'd refer to him by his rank. Same for a General, even retired he is referred to as General, not by his first name.

marinejcksn

08-06-2011, 12:42 AM

Okay, is the board seriously just that devoted to President Bush? I mean, I met the man. He was a great person who loved the troops. WAY better than the current Marxist who gives 2 shits about the military. But it doesn't dismiss the terrible things he did. Added 5 trillion to the debt. That's conservative?

Sonnabend

08-06-2011, 12:56 AM

You may very well be right. On that we can discuss and agree that he may have made some bad decisions. On that I have no issues. My point is as stated.

Ranger Rick

08-06-2011, 05:35 PM

I post this in the hopes of looking at one of the worst Presidential Administrations in American History...compared to the Obama Administration. Does anyone else feel that Bush was almost as destructive towards civil liberties as Obama? Think beyond the good people Bush put on the court, whereas Obama put Marxists on the court. Score 1 for Bush.

But what about "never let a crisis go to waste"? Bush used 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act. Obama used health care scares to pass Obamacare. One eroded Constitutional liberties and spent Billions of dollars. The other eroded Constitutional liberties and spent....Billions of dollars. Difference?

I've served under both Bush and Obama. In my estimation, both were Big Government liberals who destroyed our liberties and spent Trillions on B.S. So why does Obama get all the credit for taking our country to Hell in a handbasket?

Let me know your own views. :D

President Bush did not go to the White House with a Patriot Act. It came from congress, if memory serves, he just did not veto it.

I do not have a problem with President Bush. I do not buy the "the worst Presidential Administrations in American History..." BS from the left. When 9/11 happened it was new ground, with no rule book. He stepped up and did what was necessary, with very little help and a whole lot of hindrance from congress.

Obama, well, we have not seen the end of his fail. And thats Trillions not billions.

Starbuck

08-06-2011, 06:10 PM

......... I know the Government can violate my rights by shoving a 40 mike mike up my crapper. It doesn't mean I have to blindly support it............
If you feel it is necessary to exaggerate in order to make a point, it is just possible that you do not have much of a point.

NJCardFan

08-06-2011, 06:18 PM

Keep in mind, I fought terrorism too. Or at least the Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The point is, have my liberties been violated? I would have no way of knowing. Warrentless wiretaps could be used on anyone, at anytime.

That said, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda fanatics have spoken many times about using our powers against us. Wouldn't you think that giving the Government this much power might be something they would envision?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither."

If you think Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists you're kidding yourself.

Nubs

08-06-2011, 06:34 PM

Patriot Act was instituted as the result of a declaration and act of war by a non state entity upon the US.

The debt racked up by Obama and response by the institutes of financial governance are the result willfull acts of ommision and comission by Obsms and the US government upon itself.

Wei Wu Wei

08-06-2011, 07:29 PM

So while I'm saying it's our responsibility to keep an eye on our government to ensure they dont' abuse these powers, your content to just sit there and scream "BUT THEY CAN! THEY CAN ABUSE THEM AND THAT'S BAD!".

Big news for you bud. They already have the means to violate everyone of your civil rights. They have 105mm smoothbores, 1000lb JDAMS, and Tomahawk missiles.

Of course the government has the technological ability to violate everyone's civil rights, but before the patriot act, people had more legal recourse to protect themselves from the government's intrusions.

The patriot act gives the government legal authority to engage in MAJOR violations of privacy.

Terrorism is a political weapon, not just a military one. The goal of terrorism isn't simply to kill people in a blast, but to force irresponsible reactions from governments.

If terrorists hate our freedoms, then they are getting just what they want when our own government erodes them in response to their actions.

Wei Wu Wei

08-06-2011, 07:35 PM

The patriot act was just using 9/11 as an excuse to GREATLY expand the force and authority of the government, and deeply erode the lines of civil rights explained in the constitution.

The US constitution is a document that limits the powers of the government, and the government has always tried to get a little more power, by working around that document. During the hysteria immediately after 9/11, the government succeeded in an enormous orwellian power grab that every freedom loving America should be concerned about.

Also, this doesn't all fall on Bush. Yes it was the Republicans in power passed this bill and Bush signed it into law, but the Democrats went along with it to, and Obama has re-extended the patriot act during his term.

Nubs

08-06-2011, 08:57 PM

The patriot act was just using 9/11 as an excuse to GREATLY expand the force and authority of the government, and deeply erode the lines of civil rights explained in the constitution. The US constitution is a document that limits the powers of the government, and the government has always tried to get a little more power, by working around that document. During the hysteria immediately after 9/11, the government succeeded in an enormous orwellian power grab that every freedom loving America should be concerned about.

Also, this doesn't all fall on Bush. Yes it was the Republicans in power passed this bill and Bush signed it into law, but the Democrats went along with it to, and Obama has re-extended the patriot act during his term.

So the Patriot Act was arlready written and 9/11 was simply a pretext to put said legislation into law?

If Barry is such a "white knight", why has he not recinded the Patriot Act?

Wei Wu Wei

08-06-2011, 10:19 PM

So the Patriot Act was arlready written and 9/11 was simply a pretext to put said legislation into law?

There have been continuous attempts by the government to undermine the limitations set in place by the constitution since both were formed.

The Patriot Act was just a bold step in that direction.

If Barry is such a "white knight", why has he not recinded the Patriot Act?

What are you talking about did you even read my post? Obama carries much of the blame for extending the patriot act.

Nubs

08-06-2011, 11:37 PM

There have been continuous attempts by the government to undermine the limitations set in place by the constitution since both were formed.

The Patriot Act was just a bold step in that direction.

What are you talking about did you even read my post? Obama carries much of the blame for extending the patriot act.

Just wanted to make sure your consistent

malloc

08-07-2011, 05:35 AM

The point is, have my liberties been violated? I would have no way of knowing.

Not knowing, in and of itself, is a violation of your rights.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

If you have no way of knowing whether or not the government is spying on you without a warrant issued based on probable cause, if it's even a possibility, then you are not secure in your persons, houses, papers and effects. It is a violation.

Bush was not a bad person, but he was pretty mediocre as president. If Gore had won in 2000, and then 9/11 had happened, and Gore had signed the patriot act into law, no one on this board would support it. DU would love the act, and defend it until death, and more people on this board would rage against it. There's no way to convince me otherwise. The Patriot Act isn't good legislation. There are far less invasive ways to give the government the latitude it needs to fight terrorism without violating the any Amendments, it's just not politically convenient I guess.

SCHIP, no child left behind, the medicare expansion, and other public spending I consider failures. However, when you put the Bush presidency into context, I'm glad we had him instead of Gore, or later Kerry. I wish we had him now, instead of the Obumbler. He is definitely the lesser of the two evils in all three cases.

malloc

08-07-2011, 05:49 AM

If you think Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists you're kidding yourself.

It wasn't in 2003, it was in 2004. Iraq was more or less a secular nation, ruled by a dictator who was skirting the ire of America. He couldn't afford to allow that kind of trouble. There may have been terrorists cells or groups in Iraq, but it sure wasn't supported by the state.

However, I'm slowly coming around to thinking it was a good idea to invade Iraq, and it wasn't to get at terrorists. When you think about it, Saudi Arabia is the biggest...haven...I guess you could call it of Sunni Wahabi terrorism. Iran is the biggest haven, and quite possibly the biggest sponsor of Shiite terrorism. Iraq is smack dab in the middle of them. It's likely that Iraq had operatives of both flavors of terrorism within it's borders, but I don't think that Saddam would have actively been supporting them. Though, that's not why we invaded. If you look at a map, look at the American presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf. Then look at the position of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two biggest nests of terrorists. With troops in Iraq, we have them surrounded. It doesn't really take Sun Tzu to figure out the strategic placement. Invading Iraq has put us in a good tactical position in the ME, so no matter how flimsy the reason we had for invading the country, we needed to in order to get into that position.

I'm still not 100% convinced that our tactical advantage is entirely necessary or worth what we paid for it, but this rational does make the invasion of Iraq sit a little better in my mind.

Starbuck

08-07-2011, 12:26 PM

......... Added 5 trillion to the debt. That's conservative?
You err big, mon Friend. Spending come from congress. And congress has been Democratic since 2007.

The national debt when the Democrats took over was 8,506,973,899,215.23 to be exact.
Now, after Democrats have had their way, it's 14.3 trillion and rising. Fast.

marinejcksn

08-15-2011, 12:25 AM

You err big, mon Friend. Spending come from congress. And congress has been Democratic since 2007.

The national debt when the Democrats took over was 8,506,973,899,215.23 to be exact.
Now, after Democrats have had their way, it's 14.3 trillion and rising. Fast.

Yes, but my original point still stands. Did GWB bother to veto anything Pelousy wanted? No. Because in the end, he was a HUGE Government Liberal Repuke just like his dad. They took what Reagan built and lurched back towards the New Deal. Period.

Molon Labe

08-16-2011, 10:08 AM

I post this in the hopes of looking at one of the worst Presidential Administrations in American History...compared to the Obama Administration. Does anyone else feel that Bush was almost as destructive towards civil liberties as Obama? Think beyond the good people Bush put on the court, whereas Obama put Marxists on the court. Score 1 for Bush.

But what about "never let a crisis go to waste"? Bush used 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act. Obama used healthcare scares to pass Obamacare. One eroded Constitutional liberties and spent Billions of dollars. The other eroded Constitutional liberties and spent....Billions of dollars. Difference?

I've served under both Bush and Obama. In my estimation, both were Big Government liberals who destroyed our liberties and spent Trillions on B.S. So why does Obama get all the credit for taking our country to Hell in a handbasket?

Let me know your own views. :D

Awesome thread.
Absolutely yes. He's the one who bought the toys for Obama to play with. I've never understood why the biggest spending of federal money both foreign and domestic is championed as a great "conservative".

Yes, but the current guy always seems worse because you're further down the hill.

what he said.

Odysseus

08-16-2011, 11:19 AM

The patriot act gives the government legal authority to engage in MAJOR violations of privacy.
Name one.

Awesome thread.
Absolutely yes. He's the one who bought the toys for Obama to play with. I've never understood why the biggest spending of federal money both foreign and domestic is championed as a great "conservative".

what he said.

If you really want to compare the two, it's no contest. Bush was far better than Obama on a host of issues.

Response to economic downturns:

Bush began his first term in a recession and met it with tax cuts. During his second term, the financial crisis was met with bailouts and a small stimulus. However, it must be pointed out that Bush's first term started with a Republican house that was willing to cut taxes. His last economic crisis came about with Democrats controlling both chambers, and no possibility of fiscal sanity.
Obama has pushed tax hikes, stimulus, more stimulus, and inflationary (quantiative easing) policies. Pure Keynes, with disastrous results.
Judicial picks:

Bush: Alito, Roberts and (attempted) Myers. That's two solid conservatives and one aborted attempt to reward loyalty. Other Bush nominees included Miguel Estrada, for the D.C. Circuit (first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered), Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown, all of whom were filibustered by Democrats.
Obama: Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Two far left judges with minimal qualifications. But that seems to be the pattern: Goodwin Liu, Louis Butler, Edward Chen, Susan Carney, Bernice Donald, Caitlin Halligan, Michael Simon, Jack McConnell, etc. You can read the details of their careers here (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-most-unwanted-judges/?singlepage=true), but these are the kinds of activist judges (and mediocrities) who believe that judges can "create, invent, originate, construct, and initiate whatever “laws” they believe are necessary to change America culturally, politically, and economically into the liberal utopia they believe it should be — even if the rest of us have to be dragged kicking and screaming into their ideal world. They represent a great danger to our liberty, our freedom, our way of life, and the rule of law."

Management skills

Bush: A Harvard MBA who had a successful track record in business, and used those skills as president. Whether you agree with the policies, he was an effective commander in chief and chief executive who was able to accomplish a great deal, despite a virulently partisan opposition, including the media.
Obama: The community organizer who has never run anything but his mouth.

Patriotism

Bush: Can you imagine Bush going overseas and badmouthing America?
Obama: Can you imagine him going overseas and saying something good about America?

GWOT

Bush: Whether or not you like the war in Iraq, there is no arguing that we had to respond to 9/11 by denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan. Bush appointed capable subordinates, worked with them, and let them run the show. The end results were that by the end of his tenure, Iraq and Afghanistan had held the first free elections in their histories. The results were far from perfect, but so were the ingredients.
Obama: Eventually adopted some of Bush's policies after realizing that his promises were completely at odds with reality. His contribution to the GWOT was to rename it, and to expand it to Libya, where we are fighting to depose Qadafi in favor of an unidentified jihadist network that might be as bad, or worse, but we don't know, because nobody in the government seems to understand it. He also called for the ouster of Mubarak, a staunch ally, and coddled the mullahs in Iran, a staunch enemy. The message: If you want us to be nice to you, you should insult, humiliate and attack us, kill our troops in the field, undermine our efforts, and ultimately become a force for chaos in the world.

What it comes down to is this: Bush wasn't perfect. But he was a far greater president and man than Obama will ever be.

Molon Labe

08-16-2011, 12:59 PM

What it comes down to is this: Bush wasn't perfect. But he was a far greater president and man than Obama will ever be.

I'm not looking for a great "man". I'm looking for someone who can lead the country as a constitutional President. All those things you listed are debatable.

By far the best CIF I ever worked for was Reagan. No one else compares.

Odysseus

08-16-2011, 05:18 PM

I'm not looking for a great "man". I'm looking for someone who can lead the country as a constitutional President. All those things you listed are debatable.

By far the best CIF I ever worked for was Reagan. No one else compares.

Then debate them. Bush and Obama were polar opposites on taxes, judicial nominees and a host of other issues, and the areas where they are comparable are either those where Obama belatedly came around to policies that worked, i.e., Bush's, or he expanded far beyond what Bush did in terms of damage.

And, let's remember that the OP asked if Bush was as bad as Obama, and the answer is clearly "no." Obama has managed to make Jimmy Carter look, if not competent, at least like less of a complete tool, and that takes some doing.

Molon Labe

08-16-2011, 05:34 PM

Then debate them. Bush and Obama were polar opposites on taxes, judicial nominees and a host of other issues, and the areas where they are comparable are either those where

No thanks. I've done this before ad naseum. If you want you can search the threads where I've listed them. otherwise google the 2 million plus hits you get when you search for something like Obama Bush similarities. I'm not going to sit here and hemp praise on anyone that sold out conservatism the way he did.

We're talking matters of siginificance...and legacy....

this comment from an old New American article pretty much sums up my view.

Our Founders created the federal government to safeguard our liberties and our Republic, not to use the power of the state to re-engineer our entire way of life and to confer favors on the few at the expense of the many. But neither President Obama nor his predecessor shows any evidence of grasping this notion.

oh...there is one major significant difference, Obama got Bin Laden...something Bushy couldn't do and failed to do and by all estimations of many reliable people on the ground, had the ability to do.

.....but that doesn't make Obama better than Bush in my eyes.

Odysseus

08-16-2011, 05:52 PM

No thanks. I've done this before ad naseum. If you want you can search the threads where I've listed them. otherwise google the 2 million plus hits you get when you search for something like Obama Bush similarities. I'm not going to sit here and hemp praise on anyone that sold out conservatism the way he did.

We're talking matters of siginificance...and legacy....

this comment from an old New American article pretty much sums up my view.
I disagree. Obama is a social engineer of the worst order. Bush wasn't. I know that you don't like Bush. In fact, we all know that you don't like Bush. People who have never heard of CU know that you don't like Bush. But Obama is an order of magnitude worse than Bush ever was by every measurable standard.

oh...there is one major significant difference, Obama got Bin Laden...something Bushy couldn't do and failed to do and by all estimations of many reliable people on the ground, had the ability to do.

.....but that doesn't make Obama better than Bush in my eyes.

Bush drove Bin Laden out of Afghanistan, and got Saddam Hussein. Obama couldn't have "gotten" Bin Laden any sooner than Bush did, and Obama can't drive Qadaffi out of his own palace. Again, I get it. You don't like Bush. It's gotten old.

Molon Labe

08-16-2011, 05:57 PM

Again, I get it. You don't like Bush. It's gotten old.

Voted for him twice. Woke up and finally did a soul check. I'll take that as a compliment. I feel like I learned a whole lot from that experience.

Articulate_Ape

08-16-2011, 08:55 PM

As for the Patriot Act, I've always wondered just what civil liberties of yours have been violated?

We probably won't know for another 20 years or so how many terrorist attacks it's helped prevent though. How many lives it's saved.

I must confess that I am quite ambivalent in regard to the Patriot Act. I cannot forget Benjamin Franklin's admonition: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Odysseus

08-16-2011, 09:04 PM

Voted for him twice. Woke up and finally did a soul check. I'll take that as a compliment. I feel like I learned a whole lot from that experience.
Apparently not, if you are willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I didn't care for McCain at all, but I knew that he'd be better than Obama, and he genuinely loves this country. He might make policy errors, but he wouldn't set out to take a wrecking ball to the Constitution as a deliberate intent, as Obama has done.

I must confess that I am quite ambivalent in regard to the Patriot Act. I cannot forget Benjamin Franklin's admonition: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Will somebody, anybody, name one civil liberty that was threatened by the Patriot Act?

Molon Labe

08-16-2011, 09:21 PM

Will somebody, anybody, name one civil liberty that was threatened by the Patriot Act?

Did you ever read the poem "First they came"? (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392)

Articulate_Ape

08-16-2011, 09:23 PM

Will somebody, anybody, name one civil liberty that was threatened by the Patriot Act?

How about six? (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html)

Look, Ody, as I said, I am ambivalent about this. I just know that hard-won liberties can be legislated away if legislation is crafted upon a foundation of emotion rather than a basis in the Constitution. We need to be very careful when we decide to do anything that might be twisted in the future to deliver unintended consequences.

fettpett

08-16-2011, 09:26 PM

Did you ever read the poem "First they came"? (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392)

you still haven't answered his question. any "evidence" we have is strictly form hearsay and possibilities. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it's not evidence. I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act 1, which was a mishmash of crappy bills and pet projects of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA and others that all got tossed in in a Knee jerk reaction (which Politicians seem good at but shitty at taking time to actually consider their actions). However that bill sunset and we go the Patriot Act 2, which is what just got renewed. Thankfully these bills have sunsets in them and can be renewed or gotten rid of as needed.

Odysseus

08-17-2011, 12:09 AM

Did you ever read the poem "First they came"? (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392)
Uh, yeah, and it's irrelevant, but since you're making a specious Nazi reference, I'm invoking Godwin's Law. Now, have you read the Patriot Act? Not what somebody claims is in the act, but the actual act, itself.

How about six? (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html)

Look, Ody, as I said, I am ambivalent about this. I just know that hard-won liberties can be legislated away if legislation is crafted upon a foundation of emotion rather than a basis in the Constitution. We need to be very careful when we decide to do anything that might be twisted in the future to deliver unintended consequences.

The site that you linked to doesn't actually quote the act. It's just hearsay, and that's the problem. Almost all of the objections to the Patriot Act are based on false allegations of what it contains. In fact, it's mostly about codifying and defining the rules for applying procedures that were already in place for other kinds of crime. For example, the oft-repeated claim that it allowed the feds to subpoena library records failed to take into account that the feds could already subpoena library records. It's how they tracked down the Unabomber. The claim that it allows warrantless intercepts of cell phone calls that originate outside of the US is also false, not because it doesn't allow it, but because wireless communications that originate outside of the US have always been subject to intercept. The most famous examples of these are the Japanese Purple Code, the Venona intercepts, Echelon and Carnivore. Why is this legal? For the same reason that opening mail at the border is legal. Anything not protected by diplomatic immunity that enters a sovereign state is open to inspection.

The people who make these claims are the same people who claim that Gitmo is the latest incarnation of the Soviet gulags and that Bush fabricated the causus belli in order to hand the economy over to Halliburton. They're moonbats, and they're wrong about everything else, so why listen to them now? Here's Wikipedia's summary of the act by section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Title_I:_Enhancing_Domestic_Securi ty_against_Terrorism. Title II is where all of the controversy starts, but it's smoke and mirrors. Read the summary and you'll see what I mean.

Molon Labe

08-17-2011, 05:52 PM

Uh, yeah, and it's irrelevant, but since you're making a specious Nazi reference, I'm invoking Godwin's Law. Now, have you read the Patriot Act? Not what somebody claims is in the act, but the actual act, itself.

Perhaps I can try to help you make the connection. It's called the Slippery Slope.

Yeah I have actually read it. Several times......Did you know that alot of what people who want to enforce the Patriot act domestically resembles other legislation that's been spawned? Using those definitions of who and what they are looking for, why they could justify going after The Tea Party (http://www.fff.org/comment/com1108k.asp) types. But you could care less abot that now.

oh... and lol at someone who calls Godwin's law and routinely spouts every connection between Islam and Nazi they can.

I actually think that there was a time when laws similar to this actually led to Jews being wrongly imprisoned, but nothing to see here.....could never happen here. :rolleyes: